Yes, I think that makes he/she a hypocrite, if he/she wouldn't prefer to eliminate that risk by an alternative option; that has no risk if possible.

Also If he/she isn't forced into using that car as transportation, he/she may choose a non risk death alternative and some people are like that. They move on to non gamblistic things in life as they become available. More income, the person tends to eat more healthy and thus wants to live longer or that option is now available to them compared to poor income family.

If he/she is forced into using the car or whatever that is dangerous in transportation. Well I doubt he/she really is forced in life for that to be true but if he/she is... Well its not like you are forced into a religion or not into a religion. So i don't know, its sort of confusing and I still think i'm right that they are hypocrites.

edit:
Personally, I don't really see it as a big deal if religious people that dislike or find it bad taste to gamble on other things in life are hypocrites.
I think you guys are overreacting by trying to defend it, if it is actually the case and I think it is. :/

The pronoun you are looking for is them. Or they. Depending on context.

I actually wrote it with just using he or him but I actually prefer writing he/she instead.

I'm probably different than you in taste in many ways and this is how I prefer to read but not write.
I always catch myself and switch it up to that above with a simple ctrl+f replace script.

Also please add to the conversation, instead of being the guy/lady shouting from the sidelines.

The person shouting from the sidelines, more like. Just using he is sexist. Using he/she is cumbersome, particularly so given that you are having to do scripts to replace it. The singular they is perfect.

Well, then you've reduced your position to something completely stupid. Every action and every inaction has some risk associated with it. Go for a walk? You risk spraining an ankle or getting hit by a car. Stay indoors? You risk long term health outcomes from a sedentary lifestyle. Everything has risk. So everyone necessarily must gamble, according to your concept. Thus, all religious people cannot avoid being hypocrites about gambling and you can feel good about yourself and atheists because you have the privilege of being able to gamble and not be hypocrites.

I suspect we really just think you're making a stupid argument. At least, that's what I think it is.

I think you are labeling it as just risk by taking that out of context.
There are multiple posts that explain more than just risk.

I don't know, maybe you could explain how they are not hypocrites when they are very much comparable to someone buying a lotto ticket.

All you've brought up is risk and probability, which applies to all actions and inaction. It's not out of context, it's precisely what you're talking about.

It's not very much comparable to someone buying a lotto ticket. And it's not very much comparable to someone eating spaghetti. You're just saying a lot of nonsense and pretending like it's meaningful.

I'm not sure if you actually are reading much into the posts.
It wasn't even me that started the spaghetti comparison and my image shows how spaghetti is comparable in the sense that you don't really need it.

Maybe reread the posts but I think your opinion is wrong because you haven't been able to write much besides saying you're wrong.
It would be nice to see any rational behind why it is wrong and there is definitely more than just risk in those posts if you read them.

How much do you want me to read into things? I'm reading words and it's a lot of nonsense. What else do you want me to do with it?

Just like you don't really need feet. So would you like to compare being born into a religious household and having feet?

Do you know how analogies work? Just because two objects share some feature does not make them analogous in a useful way. You need parallel features to make a meaningful analogy. In the corresponding boxes of your image, you have the following text:

These don't go together in any meaningful way by just saying "well, you don't need either one." That's plainly stupid. Trying to argue something about risk (and you wonder why I think you're talking about risk) and the other one doesn't have any meaningful sense of risk.

Have you ever tried to argue with a conspiracy theorist? Their arguments often make so little sense that there's not much more to say than they're wrong. Because their argument is so irrational, no rational argument can make a dent in it. That's where you're at.

Say what you mean. Take out all of the crap analogies that involve spaghetti. Write a coherent two sentence summary of the argument you really want to make.

You seem to be the only one in this thread confused.
I'm not sure, if you're trying to troll me, but I'll attempt at answering it again for you.

I personally don't believe you are reading all the posts coherently but just getting stumped on a post and picking it apart. Maybe you should read coherently or look up the definition and understand that each post is adding from the previous. Usually people may jump into a thread and have that problem where they don't realize it.


Yes, I know how analogies work.
I also know how a child can be presented with 1+1=2 and tear it up before it hits the table.

I've made it clear in creating this thread, if you believe in any religion, you're gambling and you can attempt to argue this if you want. That is best step for you to take imo.

I'm not going to rewrite my posts. You're having issues and you should take that as a clue to work a little harder; nobody else seems to be having issues.

No you havent.

Read the title and then read what you quoted.

If you are saying that I haven't proved that a person is gambling in their life by choosing a religion to follow.
Please write why that is the case or even better write why it is not gambling and your post would be more enjoyable to read, thank you.

You have not proven anything.

First, there is no one here who is agreeing with you. That is significant because there are both atheists and theists responding and neither group is supportive. That at least should cause you to think a little harder about whether you have a valid point or at least if you have communicated it correctly.

Second, your arguments are weak and self contradictory.

Some examples:

You said:

"The topic of discussion has nothing to do about any benefit or non benefit about being religious or not religious."

Then you said:

"No matter what, a person is gambling with their life when they pick any one of the religions possible to pick today."

But broadly gambling is about a wager or cost balanced against some uncertain benefit. If there is no benefit than it is not gambling. If the benefit is certain than it is also not gambling. So you cannot pretend to discuss the nature of religion as being essentially gambling while ruling out any examination of the benefit of religion.

If you cannot see that then you simply do not have the intellectual tools to conduct this kind of debate.

A second example:

You said:

"You believing in any religion, is the same as taking a chance at the lottery; by gambling."

Then you said:

"You are comparing Life insurance to Religion?"

Not really a counter argument since your entire post is comparing religion to gambling so there is no basis to object to other analogies.

Also you then said:

"Life insurance may be comparable because you gain nothing as a person by joining it. You are dead anyways and not knowing if they actually helped your family or the cost was not worth it. Yet even life insurance a person buys into, will have the history of how it is backed (will pay out) and you get actual numbers to base your reason of joining. A religion has no science backing it up for a person to join and its all belief or inherited to the person joining."

The first bold is a surrender. You propose that life insurance is comparable (reversing your previous sentence) then state that there is no gain (presumably just like religion) which again means that it is not gambling. Then you start talking about the science behind the benefit. Well, this is just debating the basis for your expectations of benefits of insurance versus religion even though you earlier claimed that benefits had no part in the discussion.

That is where I quit. Your arguments are all over the place and you cannot keep a coherent approach to the question from one post to the next. In fact, your approach can change 180 degrees from one sentence to the next. That is why I dropped out.

Bottom line, you are a terrible debater. No offence intended, but you are. You need to put more thought into your arguments and try to stay consistent across all of your posts or people will just dismiss you as a lightweight. You can learn but that will not begin until you come to grips with the fact that you need to learn.

Yes the topic of discussion has nothing to do about any benefit or non benefit about being religious or not religious.

Yet we all know there is some benefit for each group of people in both religion or non religion.
I mean that is sort of common sense and doubt anyone will argue that but go ahead if you want.

So yes you get some uncertain benefit by joining a religion that you don't have by not joining.

I said "as a person by joining it" meaning that you don't gain any physical benefit. I'm sorry if you want me to write a novel but I'm assuming you know that isn't possible and that you have to add your own thought, not just my own. So it isn't a surrender and I don't know why you believe it would be anyway. Your thought process is kind of scary to how easily you shut off 'so to speak'.

Lastly it is weird that you do this; saying you 'quit' and I hope you read this post with understanding that my approach is not to get hangup on something but keep pushing it, unless I see a clear indicator that proves otherwise.

Let's try to organize this a little. It will not require you to write a novel, I promise.

You have asserted that accepting a religion is a gamble. A gamble requires some sort of investment or wager and some sort of uncertain benefit. That seems clear to me. Do you agree or disagree?

In the case of religion, what is the wager in your view and what is the uncertain benefit. That would help focus the discussion to the core of your proposition.

The evidence continues to show otherwise.

And you stand by the following analogy based on "spaghetti is comparable [to religion] in the sense that you don't really need it"? And this is based on the following end results:

??

You've made it clear that you believe this. But you haven't made it clear at all whether your position is meaningful or sensible.

Again, the evidence is showing otherwise.

Just because you keep saying "religion is gambling" doesnt make it true
your dodgy analogies dont make it true either

I might change my mind, if I think about something that would make me disagree but currently, yes I agree with that.

I believe a person is wagering time that they put into it.
Each person has a different wager; from how much time they put into whatever religion they are in.

Benefit could be many things but there is no guarantee that each person will receive the benefits, that is part of the gamble.
Some will receive the benefits they wanted and others will not or even receive negatives far outweighing the benefit they originally intended for signing up.


Aaron is your favourite food spaghetti or something?
I really enjoy spaghetti.

So everyone is always gambling no matter what they do because everyone is wagering their time. You're wagering your time right now by reading what I'm writing.

Spaghetti is good. Your argumentation is not.

What is your point and how is my argument not good, is the statement I made wrong?

My point is that you should become a better thinker so that you wouldn't put up nonsense like this thread.

Your argument is not good because it makes no sense.

I think your statement is wrong because the common notions of the word "gamble" combined with the actual sociological function of religion, the psychological process of adopting a religion, and the general falsity of your claims. "Believing in any religion" is not the same as "taking a chance at the lottery."

OK, good.

Broadly speaking, I agree. One could look at time as the wager portion of the gambling equation.

Still vague but if you are talking about various intangibles like peace of mind or hope for lost loved ones, etc. then I would accept this as the benefit portion of the gambling equation.

So I would agree that very broadly speaking one could look at religion as a gamble, with some caveats. But this brings me back to the point I tried to make that you dismissed without much justification. Everyone makes risk benefit decisions that include elements like time, money, effort, etc. on the wager side against benefits that may be tangible or intangible but are uncertain. It is unavoidable. It includes every single human being capable of cognitive reasoning. So your original statement has to be restated as "It is hypocritical for anyone to object to gambling because everyone gambles". Narrowing it to religion is unjustified because there is nothing inherent in the religion decision that differentiates it from anything else.

I don't see this thread as nonsense but maybe it is.
Yet, I do see myself waiting on a better attempt at proving my statement wrong or maybe it is correct.

Yes everyone makes risk benefit decisions that includes elements like time, money, effort, etc. Like a wager, I agree.
Unavoidable? Maybe and most likely at this point in time, yes but people exist that attempt to remove that from their life, when becoming aware of when it is happening.

Yes my statement can be tweaked but I do believe it is possible for someone to not be a hypocrite completely, unlike if they are religious and they dislike someone that gambles in their life a certain way other than their own.

This is a common intellectual error that people make in many areas. You're waiting for someone else to prove you wrong rather than examining why you think you're right.

I simply point you back to the analogy you made. Do you really stand behind "spaghetti is comparable [to religion] in the sense that you don't really need it" based on comparing the "end results" of

[Spaghetti: ] The person does not have to eat something in his/her life. So something does [not] have to be consumed.

and

[Religion: ] The person does not belong to any religion and never took on any risk. No benefit was gained or lost.

Do you really believe this is a good analogy?

What does that even mean? Who can remove all risk-benefit decisions from their life?

Just give on using the word "gamble" here. It's not helping you.